Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes: > David Carlisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > That is the situuation we are in here. LPPL has proved popular.There are > > hundreds (jillions) of independently distributed packages using the > > same licence. If you decide it is OK for the first of these to have a > > renaming rule you can't change your mind just because the licence proves > > popular. If you decide that it is not OK for the first package to have a > > renaming rule you have to find a very creative way of interpreting the > > DFSG to back up that decision since the guidelines explictly allow this > > under certain circimstances. > > No, you've misunderstood. > > If I have to rename a jillion things to make one change to the > program, then that's not reasonable. > > If I have to rename only one thing to make only one change, then > that's reasonable.
well, then there shouldn't be much problems here, should there? - The TeX engine offers a global file renaming feature - we already suggested to make that feature explicitly available as a package (which could also be used to define an alternate kernel) - with the above two all you have to do is rename one file to modify a LaTeX style (or whatever) put by its author under LPPL (no cascading effects,your new file will be used in place of the original) - that solution also has the advantage that you can choose between original and modified files at will (by turning file remapping on and off) In addition there are the additional proposals by Jeff and Henning which offer yet another way to allow modification (without file name renames) but at the cost of being unable to switch between original and modification. frank
